Dokploy MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description doesn't contradict the annotations (which indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world behavior). While the annotations already provide comprehensive behavioral information, the description adds minimal context by specifying the HTTP method (GET), which provides some implementation detail. However, it doesn't describe what format the time is returned in or any other behavioral aspects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise (just 4 words), but this brevity comes at the cost of being under-specified rather than efficiently informative. While there's no wasted text, the description fails to provide meaningful information that would help an agent understand the tool's purpose and usage.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given that this is a simple read-only tool with comprehensive annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint) and no parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, without an output schema, the description should ideally specify what format the server time is returned in (e.g., timestamp, ISO string). The current description leaves this ambiguous.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline score would be 4 even with no parameter information in the description. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics (since there are no parameters), but this is appropriate given the complete schema coverage and parameter count.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description '[server] server.getServerTime (GET)' is a tautology that restates the name/title with minimal additional information. While it implies retrieving server time, it lacks a specific verb-resource combination and doesn't distinguish this tool from any siblings. The description provides no meaningful elaboration beyond what's already in the tool name.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of context, prerequisites, or comparison with sibling tools. Given the extensive list of sibling tools, this lack of differentiation leaves the agent with no usage guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.